Browse categories:

Hide popular topics:

/r/technology is a place to share and discuss the latest developments, happenings and curiosities in the world of technology; a broad spectrum of conversation as to the innovations, aspirations, applications and machinations that define our age and shape our future.

Rules:

1. Submissions

Guidelines:

Submissions must be primarily news and developments relating to technology

Submissions relating to business and politics must be sufficiently within the context of technology in that they either view the events from a technological standpoint or analyse the repercussions in the technological world.

Please do not submit the following:

i) Submissions violating the guidelines.

ii) Images, audio or videos: Articles with supporting image and video content are allowed; if the text is only there to explain the media, then it is not suitable. A good rule of thumb is to look at the URL; if it's a video hosting site, or mentions video in the URL, it's not suitable.

vii) Mobile versions of sites and url shorteners: please directly submit the desktop version of a webpage in all cases.

2. Behaviour

Remember the human You are advised to abide by reddiquette; it will be enforced when user behavior is no longer deemed to be suitable for a technology forum. Remember; personal attacks, directed abusive language, trolling or bigotry in any form, are therefore not allowed and will be removed.

3. Titles

Submissions must use either the articles title, or a suitable quote, either of which must:

Removed threads will either be given a removal reason flair or comment response; please message the moderators if this did not occur.

All legitimate, answerable modmail inquiries or suggestions will be answered to the best of our abilities within a reasonable period of time.

Rule violators will be warned. Repeat offenders will be temporarily banned for a period from one to seven days. An unheeded final warning will result in a permanent ban. This may be reversed, however, upon evidence of suitable behavior.

I agree on that point. As long as I'm fulfilling my employment requirements, what I do in my spare time is no one else's business. In the end, if we like it or not, the point of capitalism is to increase profits. If I'm doing my job to my employer's satisfaction, then they have no business knowing what I do at home. I would like to expand the bottom line to account for the environment and employee benefits, but that isn't the discussion here. Asking for my Facebook account credentials is an invasion of my privacy. If my personal life negatively affects my professional performance, then I deserve to get fired.

On the other hand, as I'm sitting here covering my own ass, so is my employer. In this case, he worked for a prison and his employer was looking for ties to gang affiliation, because this sort of thing is apparently bad for business. If I was running a business I might want to know this sort of information.

That said, while I understand why they might want to know this sort of information, I don't think that forcing employees to hand over personal information is a right they should have. As a person who considers themselves to be honorable, I think it's wrong to ask for this information.

So as you may find apparent, I am a bit conflicted about how to reconcile the problem in a way that is safe, beneficial and compassionate to all parties involved.

Tell that to AT&T Mobility. Their policies allow them to fire you based on what you do on Facebook outside of work. As well as what you dress like or say to other people outside of work. If you're not fond of corrupted corporate politics, you're probably going to have a hard time holding onto a job with any major corporation.

By the same logic they could ask to read all of your mail or put a camera in your house so they could monitor if any gang members communicate with you or come to visit. Or they could put a tracking device on your car to see if you go to known gang hangouts. Or they could demand to put a wire on you and just monitor all your conversations. Hey, you could be talking to gang members, so why shouldn't they ask for all of this?

Your private communications are just that, private! Employers and the Government have NO right of access unless there is probably cause that a crime has been committed.

yep got a defense engineering job , they interviewed my wife and asked permission to but never talked to my parents. They wanted all my financial records and a list of any one from a list of risk countries (eg Russia, china, iran, saudi) that I had any sort of contact with.

a) If it's not a criminal issue but relates to the job nonetheless how do you get a warrant? In fact, how does a private party get a warrant at all?

b) Why would a company spend months, maybe even years, of time and money on legal fees trying to get information out of a candidate when they could just hire someone else who isn't sending up warning flags?

Our legal system avoids unreasonable access to private information by the government. It isn't meant to be applied to private firms in the same way. Really, if they have a suspicion about something that could affect your ability to do the job they want you to do and they want to follow up on it I don't see any harm in them asking for the login info. If you're not comfortable giving it to them, just say no, but don't take it the wrong way when they hire someone else instead.

If they have reasonable doubt, then they should use the legal system to get access to that kind of information, which is to get a warrant.

Do I need to remind you that you are NOT entitled to any job? It is well within an employer's legal rights to ask you whatever they please and within your legal rights to agree or walk away. No one is forcing you to give up your facebook password.

It's usually smart for an interviewer NOT to ask about these because once they hear an answer, if they don't hire the applicant, it could be hard to prove that the applicant was not hired for a valid reason as opposed to discrimination of a protected class.

That's not trolling, you're not entitled to someone's trust simply because you exist. You seem to think that people should be trusting of others simply because they are both human beings. Frankly the evidence to the contrary is astounding. Hell, the very existence of the prison in question is evidence that you can't trust random people.

It's not unreasonable. You are free to not give them the information, they are free not to give you money in response. If you are unwilling to show that you aren't a member of a gang, why should they pay you to have power over members of gangs?

It is incredibly unreasonable. To me it's the same as a company asking to search your house to see if you have gang affiliations. Both are your personal life and a company has no right to demand intimate access.

Both are your personal life and a company has no right to demand intimate access.

So a job, such as a prison, where private affiliations can be a MASSIVE security and safety issue, should have no ability to request information on your background? Do you think this for all similar jobs (such as a security guard at a bank, or a Secret Service member, etc.)? It's not like you're being forced to take these kinds of jobs, you're free to seek other employment that doesn't have such security issues.

They don't actually. There are federal laws that prevent employers from asking questions such as how old you are. Gaining access to your facebook account would be a violation of that law. There are many other laws that exist to prevent profiling.

I hope I'm not the only one who's noticing this, but we're spectating an unprecedented increase of privacy violations accross the years for the sake of security.

Let's say I have no legitimate connections to any gang members and value my privacy. Is that fair that I would have to willingly sacrifice my privacy just to make a living? Where's the trust and integrity in all of this?

Is that fair that I would have to willingly sacrifice my privacy just to make a living?

You don't have to "willingly sacrifice my privacy just to make a living". You do have to "willingly sacrifice your privacy" in order to work in a job where such privacy is at counter purposes to the job at hand. Should a secret service member not be required to submit to a background check before having the President's life placed in his hands? Of course not. Why should a prison worker not have to submit to a background check before having the lives of the prisoners placed in his?

Where's the trust and integrity in all of this?

Do you often trust people you don't know and have no reason to trust? Even when you are hiring for a position in which people are actively trying to infiltrate you?

I hope I'm not the only one who's noticing this, but we're spectating an unprecedented increase of privacy violations accross the years for the sake of security.

And when it's the government and you have no or little choice in the matter, then there's a problem. When it's an employer, and you're free to go without harm or even restriction by saying no, it's an entirely different situation.

It's not unreasonable. You are free to not give them the information, they are free not to give you money in response. If you are unwilling to show that you aren't a member of a gang, why should they pay you to have power over members of gangs?

Are you that person who frequently says, "If you're innocent, you've got nothing to worry about," with a straight face? A person who's thought so little into this subject, and/or whose faculties of extrapolation are so weak, that you've actually bought into the supposed imperative justification for things like this?

Are you that person who frequently says, "If you're innocent, you've got nothing to worry about," with a straight face?

Nope, are you free to say no to such a request from the government? Of course not.

Sorry, your comparison is awful, I'm free to tell a potential employer "No" to any request for information and then seek employment elsewhere, I'm not free to tell the government the same. If you honestly think that an employer and the government are the same, then there's no hope for you to possibly see how the world works.

A person who's thought so little into this subject, and/or whose faculties of extrapolation are so weak, that you've actually bought into the supposed imperative justification for things like this?

Ah, so you're now basing my amount of thought on the subject on your assumption of my previous thought? That's a stretch. Though the fact that you think your example and the OP are the same shows a lack of thought on your part.